M/s. Deogiri Pratishthan, Aurangabad V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1869/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2265 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , AM . / ITA NO. 1868 & 1869 /PN/201 3 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 1992 - 93 & 1993 - 94 M/S. DEOGIRI PRATISHTHAN, PLOT NO.B - 25, MIDC AREA, STATION ROAD, AURANGABAD . / APPELLANT PAN: AAATD2249L VS. THE INCOME TA X OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), AURANGABAD . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPOND ENT BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARG / DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 . 12 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 16 . 1 2 .2015 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : BOTH THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF C IT (A) , AURANGABAD , DATED 29 . 0 7 .20 13 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992 - 93 & 1993 - 94 AGAINST ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 14 4 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . ITA NO. 1868 & 1869 /PN/201 3 DEOGIRI PRATISHTHAN 2 2. BOTH THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ITA NO.1868/PN/2013 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 3. IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. 4. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE , NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT . HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) REVEALED THAT DUE TO NON - APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480 (MP - INDORE ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480 (MP - INDORE BENCH ) . 5 . ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND ON THE DATES OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A) NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED, EVEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS, REPEATEDLY NEITHER APPEARED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND EVEN ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, NONE REPRESENTS THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND MEMO OF APPEAL NO.36 REFLECTED THE ASSESSEE TO H AVE PROVIDED ITS ADDRESS TO BE PLOT NO.B - 25, MIDC, RAILWAY STATION, AURANGABAD. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT ITA NO. 1868 & 1869 /PN/201 3 DEOGIRI PRATISHTHAN 3 TO THE SAID ADDRESS , T HOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN PA RTICULARLY THE UNIT HAD BEEN CLOSED DOWN ITS BUSINESS AND THE UNIT WAS IN ABUNDANT STATE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL ITSELF STATED THAT THERE WAS NOBODY TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE / CORRESPONDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE UNIT PREMISES. HOWEVER, WE FIN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY ALTERNATE ADDRESS OF COMMUNICATION AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS ALSO SENT TO THE SAME ADDRESS. EVEN IN COLUMN 10 OF MEMO OF APPEAL, UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SPECIFY THE ADDRESS TO WH ICH NOTICES MAY BE SENT TO THE APPELLANT, THE ADDRESS GIVEN IS PLOT NO.B - 25, MIDC RAILWAY STATION, AURANGABAD. 6. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) REFLECTS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE ISSUE ON MERITS, BUT HAS DIS MIS SED THE APPEAL IN L IMINE FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. (SUPRA). WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT, IT IS THE DUTY OF CIT(A) TO PASS THE ORDER ON M ERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY IT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE PRESENT APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER , WHO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUES AFTER AFFO RDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO MAKE AVAILABLE THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF COMMUNICATION AND ALSO TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHI N REASONABLE TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 1868 & 1869 /PN/201 3 DEOGIRI PRATISHTHAN 4 7 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF DECEMBER , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 16 TH DECEMBER , 2015 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESP ONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE CIT , AURANGABAD ; 5. , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORD ER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE